Keeping track of the Zika hoax: More hocus pocus

Swede put up a link in the post below to a Daily Mail article on Zika claiming that as many as two billion people are at risk from the virus.

It’s hoax, a big one, and information about the nature of the hoax is in circulation everywhere. It almost appears as though those behind it doubling down.

“What? You’re not scared? Did I say a million? No … I meant billion. Yeah. That’s right. No. I meant TWO billion. Yeah. That’s right. Are you scared now? Are ya, punk?”

Please understand this is an accessible topic, and that we can get down to the specifics of making a hoax.

The hoaxers are relying on public ignorance and indifference to science and the methods of identifying a virus and any threat it might present.  They have not established in any manner the means by which the Zika virus, common and harmless, actually invades body cells and causes infirmities like microcephaly.

They have not done this because they don’t have to. They are instead relying on authoritative pronouncements by various liars and con artists, each having impressive credentials and titles and positions. It’s nothing more than appeal to authority. (Those with those titles and positions have their reasons for going along, usually financial incentives.)

What they are doing is hocus pocus: Virus present, presto! damage caused.

In order for a virus to damage a normal healthy human, it is to be present in our body in the millions, if not billions. One or two here and there mean nothing. Yet the hoaxers maintain the fiction that mere presence of a virus in a healthy human is evidence of cause and effect – that is, finding Zika and finding microcephaly (they keep adding to the list of maladies, but that is the primary one) means that Zika causes microcephaly.

If A, then B. The exact means by which Zika causes microcephaly … oops. They sort of forgot that intermediate step.

Most likely, there is no connection. But they are hiding something. Microcephaly in various areas of the world has been linked to presence of various pesticides, not to mention malnutrition. Zika serves as a diversion, misdirection, and protects the makers of these pesticides from massive lawsuits, possibly even bankruptcy. The stakes are high.

Read this, for instance:

“Brazil is far and away the most important country in Latin America, firmly under US control since 1945, when it became a ‘testing area for modern scientific methods of industrial development’ applied by US experts…It is a country with enormous resources that should be the ‘Colossus of the South,’ ranking alongside the ‘Colossus of the North,’ as predicted early in the century. It has had no foreign enemies, and benefited not only from careful US tutelage but also from substantial investment. It therefore shows with great clarity just what the US can achieve in ‘enlarging the free community of market democracies’ under conditions that are near ideal.”

“The successes are real enough. Brazil has enjoyed a very high growth rate, which conferred enormous wealth on everyone except its population – apart from the top few percent, who live at the standards of the wealthiest Westerners. It is a sharply two-tiered society. Much of the population live at a level reminiscent of Central Africa…the UN Report on Human Development ranked this rich and privileged country in 80th place, alongside of Albania and Paraguay. In the northeast, Brazilian medical researchers describe a new subspecies: ‘pygmies,’ with 40% [actually 60%] the brain capacity of humans, thanks to severe malnutrition in a region with fertile lands, owned by large plantations that produce export crops in accord with the doctrines preached by their expert advisers. Hundreds of thousands of children die of starvation every year in this success story, which also wins world prizes for child slavery and murder of street children – in some cases for export of organs for transplant, according to respected Brazilian sources.”*

Read use of the word “pygmies” to mean “microcephaly.” That was written by Noam Chomsky, in 1993.

Normal human immune systems easily isolate and destroy invaders, and have throughout our history. We live in harmony with millions of viruses, none of which present any threat to a healthy human, Zika among them. In fact, Zika is not proven to cause any human ailment, not even a head cold.

The subject is accessible, but takes some effort on our part to read about the science, the methodology for identification of a virus. I recommend that you start here, with an interview by journalist Christine Johnson with biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos regarding the isolation and identification of the HIV virus. It is hard reading, and your own judgment will be needed, but if you read this blog, you’re probably used to it.

And if you do that bit of homework, you are in a good position to judge the credibility of the Zika threat all on your own without reliance on the impressive and fake authority figures they keep throwing at us to back up their hoax.
*h/t  Jon Rappoport for forwarding this link to his readers.

27 thoughts on “Keeping track of the Zika hoax: More hocus pocus

  1. Here, why don’t you break down this report that just came out from the New England Journal of Medicine? I got better things to do with my time:

    Zika Virus and Birth Defects — Reviewing the Evidence for Causality

    The Zika virus has spread rapidly in the Americas since its first identification in Brazil in early 2015. Prenatal Zika virus infection has been linked to adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, most notably microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies. To determine whether Zika virus infection during pregnancy causes these adverse outcomes, we evaluated available data using criteria that have been proposed for the assessment of potential teratogens. On the basis of this review, we conclude that a causal relationship exists between prenatal Zika virus infection and microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies.


    1. Nah you don’t. You break it down for me. The hoax gets to play at all levels, and all sources. But the virus was discovered in 1948.

      The Zika scare, like all before it, will disappear like baseball players into a corn field in the coming months.

      [PS: Skimming the article, then googling a link that, in your mind, debunks it, then throwing the link in my face and saying “Here, read it, I got better things to do” lacks a certain sense of style. Know what I mean? It’s not even a quality drive-by.]


      1. No, that’s not what I did. The link I provided is what every medical entity in this country — or most of the word for that matter — is using for its information. If you want to have any credibility with your opinion, and I have a healthy amount of skepticism about CDC studies, this is the sort of article that needs to be critiqued. You put up your opinion against the CDC. Who do you think is going to listen to whom?

        Just saying that if you want to play David and Goliath and take on Zika as hoax, you’ve got some pretty big entities to debunk (CDC and the NE Journal of Medicine). Otherwise it just comes off as more anti- or pseudo-science crackpottery.


        1. What I said is that they are using appeals to authority to sell this hoax, and you gave me one of those authorities.

          If you would read what I wrote, and I don’t think you ever do, Mr. SAS, you would realize that you have to ask better questions, dig a little deeper, including the link I provided. The matter of fake isolation of the HIV virus is baseline data.

          Instead you googled, tossed it in my face and said here, I got it figured out. Pogie would be proud of you. Damned if I know why he banned you.

          And yeah, you’ve done this before, Mr. Drive By. I resign from your fan club.


          1. Mr. SAS, what the hell does that mean??? And it is exactly “authority” that needs to be challenged here. But a pseudo-scientific attempt just doesn’t cut it. Of what use is your opinion when put up against establishment med journals and the government? You want credibility, then you’ve got to critique what is put out there. You raised the issue, not me.

            And no, I didn’t google it. I’ve read several articles that refer to that study, it just came out last week. It’s the baseline for where policy and money are going to be driven.

            And you can begin to deride me all you want. I don’t exactly know why, except that I maintain a healthier dose of skepticism than you about fringe debunkers like Mathis. So if it is just going to be ad hominem’s against me from here on out, so be it… I can make personal attacks on people’s motives and agendas as well as the next blogger.


            1. I worked as a reference librarian for three years to put myself through grad school, getting a masters in… science. So yeah, I know how to read scientific material and understand it. Of course, you either won’t believe that, or criticize me for attempting to be an authority. No big.

              How well did your cpa training do to prepare you to read medical studies? Tackle the CDC study, and put your best to it, if you dare. You might be surprised at what you find.


              1. I worked my way through college, passed the CPA exam on first try. Means nothing. Means I am good at taking tests. Your credentials have not brought important information to bear, since you did not trouble yourself to read the interview I linked, and instead just threw an authority source at me. Kind of sophomoric. Creds mean nothing. I am talking due diligence.


          2. Mathis? Hmmm. Appeal to authority? New England Journal of Medicine. The medical cartel is all-encompassing, and that source is no exception. That you read medical journals now? Nah. You don’t. That I am attacking you? No.,I am responding in kind to your short attitude, and especially your skimming and throwing shit at me without due diligence. You didn’t read the Papadapalus interview, no problem. Just don’t dissemble on me. I know this internet game too well.

            You got a Kailey-like frown going on me. Talbot the same. I said something true. You don’t do diligence, just drive by. Fucking deal with it,


            1. Yeah, so I have ADD and refuse to take a drug for it, what about it? At least I’m not obsessing about meaningless fake conspiracy rot like Mathis puts out. Go have a martini and chill.


              1. Shit, you can’t recognize sarcasm if it bit you in the ass. You and Miles have fun. You guys are in a universe all by yourselves. Enjoy it!


              2. I agree, sadly, that only a small percentage of the population, maybe 5%, can deal with his prodigious output and handle the implications. But I have seen first hand his clear insight, followed it, and it led me to the McCartney twins. Ain’t no one else anywhere done that. No one. Nowhere. He’s credible, in my judgment.

                You, on the other hand, have the security of your group to comfort you. That, to me, is the normal human condition, groupthink and fear of the implications of new ideas, coupled with poor problem solving ability.


                1. You have no clue about any group I may have for comfort, or how I think. You have no special insight into my world, so quit pretending you know anything about it. You are nothing but a sad little bully, constantly having to put down others who don’t think like you, or who have the temerity to call you out on your bullshit. You can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it. True bullying behavior no better than in the schoolyard.

                  You, on the other hand have become the new torch-bearing Captain Thought Police in my book. If one doesn’t think like you, agree with you, or see the world in your way, then they are below you. You are a thought-patrolling elitist Mark, no better than Pogie or any other you denigrate while sitting on your mountain perch looking down on the clueless peons.


                2. Funny you say all that, but I feel no anger or resentment. Your group is more commonly known as progressives, seeking moral superiority, having deeper empathy, and being more intelligent than mere Republcians, Democrats, or right wingers. I walked that path once. But we do have to keep moving forward, challenging our own views, looking in the mirror, don’t we? I’ve abandoned a great deal these past few years, and letting go a cherished belief is hard. But you Pwoggies are no different than any other group in immersion in groupthink and punishment of outsiders, in this case, me.

                  If you ever come here with a rational argument that does not rely on ad hominem, bald assertion, dismissiveness, sweeping generalization; if you ever provide a modicum of evidence beyond anecdotal, if you ever justify your use of yourself as the ultimate authority (“I studied photoshop … I played guitar … I know people with AIDS…) you’ll find me more than accommodating.

                  The problem between you and me is … You.


            2. Since ADD is fake, it is good you are not taking a drug for it.

              Mathis made my day today, as I will highlight next week. He is genuine talent. No fakery there. But then, you do have to read what he writes. All the way through.


  2. People yawned off the ebola scare instead of hurling themselves en masse off the nearest precipice (wasn’t it amazing how quickly a potential vaccine hit the scene there?). Therefore the next bio-horror, Zika, got pulled off of the shelf and put into service. Of more concern to me is the push to release genetically modified mosquitoes in response. This is where the potential for real horror lies. The gods of science, composed of the same fallible material as the rest of us, have no idea of the potential outcome. They just have a new toy they are dying to play with.


    1. Thanks. Good observation. I don’t think JC above quite yet can see that the medical cartel is all-inclusive so that New England Journal of Medicine is going to play along. I wrote about how they used appeals to authority to sell the hoax, and he gave me one.


      1. So where did you get the crystal ball glimpse into my mind? You haven’t a clue about what I know about science journals, and how they are written. You want to critique medical journals, you’re going to need more than “appeals to authority” as a defense. I’m not using the journal, or appealing to it’s conclusion. It’s just if you want to take it down, you’ll have to understand and use a rational critique methodology. If you can’t do that, then I guess you’ve always got… your opinion…


          1. Didn’t read the NE Journal article, did you? Or if you did, you didn’t understand what was being discussed. As to Papadapalus, wtf does aids/hiv have to do with zika? Your going to generalize from one case study to the other? On what grounds?

            I’m sure the Papadapalus interview will really help dispel whatever the cdc is trying to accomplish with their study. Except anybody who pays attention to hiv/aids knows that the Perth Group is nothing more than a bunch of pseudo-scientists whose efforts lead to a lot of deaths in places where treatment policies are restricted to people afflicted with aids.

            Your delving into pseudo science and denialism really doesn’t help your credibility. Papadapalus isn’t even a doctor — she’s just a lab tech. But it makes it sound more important to put the Dr. in front of her name — you know, an appeal to authority… except I thought you didn’t like authorities? Or do you just not like an appeal to an authority that doesn’t agree with you?


            1. I didn’t refer to her as Doctor, not that it matters. I read the interview, about lab techniques to isolate viruses. She works in a laboratory where they use centrifuge and electron microscopes to ID viruses. It was never properly done with HIV, making indentification of that virus questionable, even as authority figures say otherwise. I don’t care that you didn’t read it, as you were just driving by. Just don’t pretend it is not germane.

              Then you threw at me a NE Journal article which by your own admission you had not read.

              All in all, a poor showing on your part, my only point.

              As to Zika being a hoax, my reading goes much further. Viruses in general are not dangerous, and bacteria are pretty much under control, or could be if we were to extend treatment to Africa and Brazil. The whole notion that we have viral epidemics is suspect, as nothing has materialized to date, though I do fear, as Nemo said above, they they might make it real by creating a mosquito that transmits something. He is much more on top of things than you. They are invested in making epidemics, not stopping them..


            2. You can’t even read what I said, how can you begin to think you can comprehend what others write? Yes, I read the NE Jurnal article. Yes, I read the Papadopolous piece (what a waste of time). And I read the critiques of the Perth Group. They’re phonies.

              But what really set me off here is that you are an AIDS denier. I have lost several good friends to AIDS in the past. And I know people on, and have worked cooperatively with the local Open AID Alliance. People have, and are continuing to die from the syndrome. That you would make light of it by being a denier just reflects how divorced from reality your conspiracy-mongering has become. You truly are a modern Truman Burbank, living in an altered reality of your own creation.


            3. The implications here will cause you to seek cover: people die from AIDS treatment, not AIDS. Now you came in here admitting you had not read the NE Journal piece, just threw it at me saying life is too short, your typical drive by. You later said that you did not read the Papadapulus piece. Now you say you’ve read both. You dismiss the latter, but don’t address specifics. I read it, and it made great sense to me.


              1. You are so full of shit, your septic tank of a brain is running over. Your denialist, pseudo-scientific bigoted attitude about the world is nothing but crackpottery. People who get no treatment die from AIDS — I’ve seen it happen to people I care about. Of course, you’ll find some phony Dr., or other delusional crackpot like Mathis, somewhere in the world to vindicate your idiotic fantasies about the alternate reality you’re living in.


              2. You’re a near-perfect mirror of every illusion fostered on us these days. The people who died of “AIDS” would have died of something else had we not called it AIDS. Since you did not absorb (I am not sure you even read it, and certainly not carefully) the Papadolpous piece, I will recount: HIV was never carefully isolated and identified, and further, was not even necessarily present in what came to be called “AIDS.” She outlined the methodology by which a virus is isolated, a tedious process that has to be done to be sure that we have not mistaken debris for a virus, or even human DNA. This is but one interview, of course, but fits in with my studied view that PhRMA is a racket of immense proportions that does not want to cure any disease, but rather create them, manage them, and clean out our pockets in the process. These are criminals of historic stature.

                Given that we do not know for sure we have a virus, the link between virus and disease cannot be certified. But that is only one problem. Another is, as with Zika, mere presence of a virus does not mean that the virus is the cause of a disease. They have to identify the means by which the virus attacks cells, not a few, but en masse. And that too was was hocus pocus, you have the virus (we think), therefore you are going to die of AIDS in ten years or so unless we give you a whole range of toxic medication. AIDS won’t kill you, because our remedy will get you first.

                Think about it – a virus present is going to kill you in ten years unless we destroy your immune system now with our drugs.

                JC I have found arguing with you to be a tedious matter, as 1) you usually pan an entire issue without any diligence, using throwaways like I am just full of shit. 2) Then you come back when weakened and reinforce the throwaway with a reinforcement throwaway, usually along the lines of “I have special knowledge and training so my words are sacred.” 3) Then you finish up with “I know someone who…”

                Any fool can wander in here and use those same lines, and since it is the Internet, there need be no research, no diligence, no background, not even casual reading. It becomes “You must accept my credentials or you will insult me personally.” If I don’t, you’re deeply wounded.

                I have a name for this method of argumentation, coined it myself: Kaileyism.

                Now, go your way, don’t come back until you are ready to confront me with your own words carefully put together showing evidence of some depth and background on a subject. Merely insisting that I trust your expertise does not cut it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s